Ex parte MOONEY et al. - Page 6

          Appeal No. 95-0057                                                          
          Application 07/775,114                                                      

          Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,              
          788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,              
          189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).                                              
          With respect to each of the three rejections, the                           
          examiner has pointed out the teachings of the prior art, has                
          pointed out the perceived differences between the prior art and             
          the claimed invention, and has reasonably indicated how and why             
          the prior art would have been modified and/or combined to arrive            
          at the claimed invention.  The examiner has, therefore, at least            
          satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of                    
          obviousness.  The burden is, therefore, upon appellants to come             
          forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the             
          examiner's prima facie case of obviousness.  Appellants have                
          presented several arguments in response to the examiner’s                   
          rejections.  Therefore, we consider obviousness based upon the              
          totality of the evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the             
                        I. The rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5                        
                         based upon Kemppi, D’Avello or Harris in                     
                         view of Fuwa.                                                
          The examiner relies on each of Kemppi, D’Avello and                         
          Harris as teaching a remote card reader for use with a cellular             
          telephone.  According to the examiner, each of these references             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007